Letters to the Editor
September 24th, 2003
Hanink is off-base, meetings, lounges open to everyone To the Daily: I think it is interesting that the Daily printed Jim Trout's letter ('Double standards' favoring minorities unfair to majority, 09/23/03), regarding Johanna Hanink's column ('Members-only' diversity, 09/22/03), as his comments about his visit to the University with his son dangerously introduces, if not perpetuates, the idea that the African-American lounges are restricted to blacks only. Though (hopefully) all of the upperclassmen of the University know that Trout's son didn't know what the bloody hell he was talking about when he made that glaring, obviously uneducated mistake in telling that to his dad, I can still imagine some encouragable freshman with a snot bubble coming out of his nose reading the response and jumping to that ridiculous conclusion that there would actually be a lounge in a University reserved exclusively for one ethnicity. Almost more dangerous was the error that Hanink makes in the column itself. She speaks of the "minorities only" meeting that took place last fall term in the wake of the Daily boycott, but she was very off-base with her factual information. Had Hanink even attempted to attend the meeting herself, she would have learned not only was it not restricted to minorities, but that she would have been in good company with other white representatives of the Daily! She cites an e-mail as advertising it as "minorities only," though I and no one else I have spoken to received an e-mail with that specific wording, and Hanink's journalistic background should allow her to know better than to anonymously cite any e-mails as reference points. I doubt this letter will make it in the paper, but, not for lack of trying, some very important facts needed to be cleared up in this mess of crass assumptions. Dustin J. Seibert LSA senior Wagner's argument flawed, Israel a Jewish theocracy that deprives Palestinians of rights To the Daily: In his letter (Divesting from Israel contrary to U.S. policies supporting democracy in Middle East, 09/20/03), Stuart Wagner refers to Israel as a "secular democratic state." However, as a self-proclaimed "Jewish state," Israel cannot, by definition, qualify as a secular democratic state. A theocratic state, Israel has over 20 policies that discriminate against its non-Jewish citizens. The crux of Wagner's argument, that because Israel is a democratic state we should not divest from it, is in itself flawed. Last week, Avraham Burg, former Israeli Knesset speaker and the keynote speaker of last year's "Israel: Piecing Together the Puzzle" conference, surprised Israeli society and admitted, "We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew." Referring to Israel's 36 year occupation of 3.6 million Palestinians, Burg further stated, "Traveling on the fast highway that skirts barely a half-mile west of the Palestinian roadblocks, it's hard to comprehend the humiliating experience of the despised Arab who must creep for hours along the pocked, blockaded roads assigned to him. One road for the occupier, one road for the occupied." Of the 5 million Palestinians under Israeli control, only 30 percent have the right to vote. Of that minority, not a single indigenous, non-Jewish Palestinian enjoys full benefits or equality under the law. This "democracy" certainly should not be lauded as Wagner suggests. Rather, a growing number of academics, scholars, and South African anti-apartheid heroes have correctly characterized this as apartheid, and a plausible course of action then would be divestment. Hassan Abraham LSA junior Vice Chair, Students Allied for Freedom and Equality Word snob bashes fellow word snob's use of 'fascist' in battle of literary proportions To the Daily: I can't express how happy I am see to that some at the Daily are very picky about the meanings of the words they use (People who use words they don't know are (not) ironic fascists, 09/23/03). It's been a major gripe of mine for many years. Unfortunately Aubrey Henretty could not quite divorce the political implications of words from what they actually mean. She regrets that the "War on Iraq" became the "War in Iraq" in the first days of the conflict. Perhaps the preposition changed because now the war had moved into Iraq. "In," in this case, is more descriptive. Though I'm sure Henretty would have preferred "War Against Iraq," as would I, but the words are correct, and "on" is such an awkward phasing. She provides many examples of how not to use the word "fascist," but unfortunately hers falls short as well. "...there's a real fascist pushing unconstitutional legislation through Congress." Not to defend Attorney General John Ashcroft, or get into a monologue about which elements of 1930s fascism define the word, but there are enough people in this world to whom the label "fascism" does apply that we don't need to define it down to meet Ashcroft. Save it for Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez, real fascists. After all, words mean things. Karl Brakora Rackham DPS, AAPD need to protect students from the homeless To the Daily: This comes in response to the article about the assaults that happened over the weekend, (DPS arrests suspect in knife incident, 09/24/03). I am glad to see that the Ann Arbor Police Department, along with the Department of Public Safety are stepping up to the plate. I personally find that the homeless people are extremely threatening. Whether they try to be or not, I would prefer to be left alone, rather than be accosted on the street on my way to class. It really surprises me when I go there, to see the amount of homeless people that freely hang around the campus. I think that the homeless people would not feel so threatened by the students if they just did not talk to them. I don't see a need for comments to be thrown around on the street. I often fear for my safety when I am around these people, and as a student here at the University, I should not have to feel that way. I am not trying to make any generalizations about homeless people, I am just very leery of their presence here on campus. It is always unfortunate that something less than satisfactory has to occur for some action to be taken. Maybe now, everyone will realize that there is a large problem on this campus and something has to be done about it. There has to be some way that the University community can live simultaneously with homeless people and the situation is safe and secure for both sides. Leslie Rott Rackham First-come, first-serve voucher system at Michigan Stadium would make for a lively crowd To the Daily: From what was described in Monday's analysis of Saturday's football game against Oregon, a first-come first-serve voucher system for student seating sounds much more conducive for a lively crowd than our current system based on credits earned. Why should drunken sorority seniors be ushered to the front row when they show up a half hour late (if they bother to show up at all)? A credit system is perfect for course selection, but should have no bearing on where you sit during football games. The people who care about the team deserve good seats. The current system is also flawed because it isolates incoming freshmen who don't know anyone to sign up for tickets with before the school year. Isn't the point of all of the Welcome Week activities to break up the old high school cliques? Vouchers allow for new and old friends to sit together, sparing the event staff from policing the student section row by row. Obviously this new system would reward consecutive season tickets holders, but only in the sense that they would be guaranteed a seat. The bottom line is that people who choose to party and miss the game deserve to be in the back, while the fanatics who arrive early should get to sit in the front. Nick Reddig LSA junior
Printed from www.michigandaily.com on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:50:12 -0500